HOT MIC: Liberal Senator Feinstein Caught Ranting About Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic Religion When S

I notice you're avoiding the question, but yes, Christian religions allow that.

You're in one of those countries.

Now go to Iran or Pakistan and test your theory.

 

So?

 

Isn't their a recipe for abortions in the bible?

 

...and you can prove NO Republican ever had an abortion? LOL Good luck with that!


Pro-Choice is exactly that...we want women to have the same basic human right of bodily autonomy that everyone else has.

Protecting their human rights is NOT advocation/supporting abortion nor making their choices for them as righties want to do.

 

Sure.

We don't make the choice to get pregnant. They do.

Go ahead and tell me how having sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

Kind of like how drinking vodka isn't consent to get drunk.

 

Any future SCOTUS appointee who claims to be pro choice is a threat to Roe v Wade, which is not a pro choice law. Roe v Wade RESTRICTS a woman's choice after the 2nd trimester. So actually, a true prochoicer disagrees with Roe.

 

But isn't that the core of the discussion here Gatewood. You bring up the perfect example. Apparently Pelosi can separate that, so the question is can ACB ?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
...and you can prove NO Republican ever had an abortion? LOL Good luck with that!


Pro-Choice is exactly that...we want women to have the same basic human right of bodily autonomy that everyone else has.

Protecting their human rights is NOT advocation/supporting abortion nor making their choices for them as righties want to do.

We weren't talking about having sex...or do you want to regulate women's sex lives, too...MORE Big Government !!???

 

Would you like me to explain how procreation works.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
...and you can prove NO Republican ever had an abortion? LOL Good luck with that!


Pro-Choice is exactly that...we want women to have the same basic human right of bodily autonomy that everyone else has.

Protecting their human rights is NOT advocation/supporting abortion nor making their choices for them as righties want to do.

The restriction on abortion after 23 weeks(viability) was a sop to get the extremists to calm down and accept that women have rights, too. …

It was TOTALLY unnecessary since mentally healthy women do not want abortion after that unless it's to save their life..

Most abortions are done at 12 -18 weeks....

My only objection to RvW is that states were given too much power over women's rights....

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
...and you can prove NO Republican ever had an abortion? LOL Good luck with that!


Pro-Choice is exactly that...we want women to have the same basic human right of bodily autonomy that everyone else has.

Protecting their human rights is NOT advocation/supporting abortion nor making their choices for them as righties want to do.

We weren't talking about having sex...or do you want to regulate women's sex lives, too...MORE Big Government !!???

Would you like me to explain how abortion is the topic....but some are more interested in women's sex lives???

We weren't talking about having sex...or do you want to regulate women's sex lives, too...MORE Big Government !!???

 

Would you like to explain how all of these topics relate to each other.

Takes me back to my original offer.

 

Would you like me to explain how abortion is the topic....but some are more interested in women's sex lives???

We weren't talking about having sex...or do you want to regulate women's sex lives, too...MORE Big Government !!???

...

 

Praying and consulting with your god on a decision is fine, it's when one supports restrictions on citizens under the basis of their religion that said public figure is failing to maintain proper principles of religion and law. The law must be maintained and applied under the basis of civics, and judges especially need to be questioned on this matter before being hired or promoted for public duty

 

Sometimes it's just the tone you say it in.

 

The Church is mainstream - broad. People of Praise is a small fundamentalist sect and Members have taken a sworn commitment - extremely narrow.

 

I wasn't talking about what most women do. I wasn't talking about why you think the judges passed the law. I'm saying that if you are truly prochoice, you disagree with Roe as it restricts choice. It's simple. Unless you want her choice to be restricted after the 2nd trimester. In which case you aren't pro choice and have some splainin to do as to why you feel there should be restrictions. Just like prolifers. Just at a different time...

 

A lot of people like to say that Trump lies, he hyperboles, etc, etc(and to a degree this is true.). Isn't that what's being done here? Why shouldn't we accept it on good faith that a judge will apply the law scrupulously? Have there been any complaints by those who litigated before Judge Barrett that she ruled according to her religious beliefs, and not what the law dictates?

If not, then this is precisely in poor faith. And yes, it's religious bigotry because you wouldn't have these questions in poor faith of a democratic nominee. As others have said, neither Sotomoyer or Kagan were treated in this fashion. In fact, if Barrett joins the court, that would be as many as 3 women on the US Supreme Court, can you imagine that?

The reality is, since the 2016 election there has been much hyperbole, and much chagrin and much nonsense. And as a result, few people are actually seeing the situation for what it is. In reality, it's very unfair to Barrett(as well as against the way our country was founded) to say "Ooh, she's a catholic heretic, burn the witch!" We rejected the Salem witch hunt trials, the 1600's want their discrimination back.

I actually think she's answered the questions very thoroughly, so thoroughly that I believe even a Romney would have to say "She'll serve well on the court", and she could get as many as 55 votes. She'll be confirmed, and the heretic attempts will have failed, but the point is, it's beneath American dignity that it was even attempted.

 

So . . . do we ask Buddhists and Muslims and Hindi and Taoists if THEY can separate faith from duty or law or policy? If not then why not? Should that now become part of the law that everyone has got to forswear their religion before working for government in any possible capacity? Now it's getting interesting.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
...and you can prove NO Republican ever had an abortion? LOL Good luck with that!


Pro-Choice is exactly that...we want women to have the same basic human right of bodily autonomy that everyone else has.

Protecting their human rights is NOT advocation/supporting abortion nor making their choices for them as righties want to do.




The restriction on abortion after 23 weeks(viability) was a sop to get the extremists to calm down and accept that women have rights, too. …

It was TOTALLY unnecessary since mentally healthy women do not want abortion after that unless it's to save their life..

Most abortions are done at 12 -18 weeks....

My only objection to RvW is that states were given too much power over women's rights....

Oh, so you don't want an answer or explanation, just someone to agree with you....


I do NOT believe there should be any restrictions on abortion.....

But if RvW protected women from rabid misogynists in any way I'm all for it...

 

When it comes to the SC, YES.

But that makes the assumption that the right would allow any religion other than traditional faiths. And lets be honest, the right would loose their collective minds if any other faith was even considered, let alone nominated.

 

I suppose if you feel that there's no moral component to their opposition to abortion, it would be easy to chalk it up to "playing politics". I happen to believe, like faithful Catholics do, that there's a powerful moral component to the issue.

 

Oh, I DO believe there is a powerful moral component to the issue...and that is that women (like men) have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies.

I am well aware of the Catholic stance on abortion, as I was raised and practiced Catholicism for 40 years. Even taught Sunday school for a time. But if communion was denied to those Catholics who either had or supported abortion (or the woman's right to choose), they'd be stocked up with the Host for years to come.

 

It's interesting you say that, because Sotomoyer is also Catholic. In fact, five of the nine justices in the supreme court are Catholic, and back in 2015 it was six of the nine justices. The notion that Barrett is being treated differently because of her religion and not her position on abortions seems unlikely. If any Republican senators do vote against her, I don't think it will be Romney, my money would be on Collins or Murkowski since they are both pro-choice.